Using the ballistic data I have compiled below help me choose which one is the superior intermediate assault rifle cartridge for combat, defense, and hunting light thin skinned game.
Out of what platform? What are the cartridge dimensions?
For a sniper rifle it would be cartridge A, provided it fit into a 308 or smaller action.
For an assault rifle? It depends - which one holds more ammo? Which one has lower cost ammo?
You need to list the variables such as requested above, be a bit more open or this will be in the trash. My guess is this is “A” cartridge compared to the 300 BLK. So what extra parts are required to run cartridge “A”
Clean it up. And I seriously doubt that sig line statement, he was more intelligent than that.
Is this comparing the .243 Winchester and the 7.62x39? If so, there is no comparison… one is designed solely for ranges less than 300m and the other is a hunting hybrid designed to down game at 600m. One’s case is 51mm and the others is only 39mm. If they were the same, as in .243 vs. 7.62 NATO… we already know the answer.
based on pure ballistics, obviously Cartridge A. But its values are all based on velocity. It remains supersonic out to 900 yards, 300 more than Cartridge B, however; this does nothing for terminal ballistics.
Cartridge B retains more momentum upon impact due to mass, Cartridge A will shed all of that extra velocity immediately upon impact so it may not perform very well. Or it may even just zip right through without doing much damage.
I would still say the .308 is better than the .243 Winchester. Mostly depending upon the circumstances it is employed.
Also, the weapons used are not exact so there is no control for the variables, the HOB is different between them by 1.25", a considerable amount.
In order to obtain non-biased results, you would have to use the same weapon system with the same barrel length, muzzle crown/device, rifling type and twist, optics and mount with the same HOB, and conduct the testing indoors to remove variable weather conditions. And probably also shoot into the same density gel or medium to test terminal effects. But usually in the end this is not possible because each caliber has a specific barrel length, rifling pattern and twist they prefer for optimal performance.
Seems to be 6.8 compared to 300 BLK.
Everything is a compromise. You give up terminal and barrier performance to gain a shallower trajectory.
Guessing 6.5 grendel vs .300blk
.243 is 6mm, 6.5 is .264. I don’t think it’s a .243 because 2750 is slow for a 90 grain .243 load. So, maybe somebody peddling a 6mm variant based on the .223 case?
If I don’t hear back from him by tonight, it’s going in the trash where it belongs without additional information.
Cartridge A is the 6x45, Cartridge B is the 300 BLK.
Both cartridges are fully compatible with the AR platform. Magazine capacity is the same for both rounds. Both cartridges use the 5.56/223 case, standard 5.56 magazines, bolts, etc requiring only a new barrel to be used in the AR.
From a cost perspective the 6x45 is cheaper to reload and components are much more readily available than the 300. In regards to factory loaded ammunition the 300 BLK is cheaper and more widely available.
And much less wind drift. Terminal and barrier performance is more of an issue related to bullet design than external ballistics.
Ok, back on track, woohoo!, do I win?
On paper the 6mm looks better. Not being a terminal ballistics expert, I can’t truly comment on the on target performance. I could speculate though and say long range may be better but the close range intended use of the 300 suppressed may be another issue.
We might give you more credit if it wasn’t for the sig line–
I like 6x45. I have a few concerns.
1 - it seems like too little a change from 5.56mm to bother.
2 - The brass should probably be shortened a little to allow better compatibility with the current 6mm bullets.
For comparing ballistics “platform” does not matter. If this is the ballistics you are seeking (they are what you’d get from these bullets in similar sized cases) they are achievable out of the same rifle. Yes, that’s slow for a 243 Winchester with a 90 gr bullet. My guess is that it’s something similar to the 5.56 necked up to take a .244" bullet. The ballistics of the .30 caliber round is what you’d from a 300 BLK or similar.
It’s probably safe to assume Nightvisionary framed the question so the answers would be based on ballistic performance rather than pre-conceived notions about a certain caliber.
As for myself, I would probably choose the 30 caliber. The ballistics for the 24 caliber are likely to be from at least a 20" barrel and will probably be around 150 fps slower out of a carbine. Better ballistics will be had from the 5.56 with a good bullet. For shooting anything larger than a coyote past 200 yards, I would choose a cartridge with more oomph than either of these. I also feel a hunter should give careful consideration before shooting a deer past 200 yards.
For close shots on deer sized critters out of a 16" barrel, the 30 caliber gets my vote. For longer shots on coyote sized or smaller game the 5.56 shoots flatter at a higher velocity and has a better bullet selection for explosive performance on small varmints.
Add to the fact that the 24 caliber cartridges delivering this type of performance is either a wildcat or produced in small numbers, the 30 caliber in the guise of the 7.62x39 or 300 BLK is much easier and cost effective to get, I would definitely choose the 30 caliber. Neither would replace the 5.56 of my defense carbine
During SPC testing, the 6 mm projectiles consistently had issues with intermediate barrier penetration that were not present with the larger calibers. In addition, the 6 mm terminal effects were not on par with those noted with 6.8 mm and 7 mm projectiles.
Likewise, the ARDEC caliber study released last year conclusively proved the superiority of .277" projectiles compared to smaller calibers when assessing performance of identically constructed bullets in both bare tissue and through intermediate barriers.
My sense is that 6.8 was best for existing projectiles - but if 7mm was picked, then one could make custom projectiles and have great results.
What would the trajectory table look like with the 6.5, 6.8,and 7mm as compared to the BLK? A little flatter with a little more velocity.
RSilvers? before you went with the 30 cal did you do any testing with the 7mm?
If it’s for 6x45mm then you need to show this in your graph!!! When comparing you always use as close to the same bullet wt’s! FOR BOTH
-don’t stack the deck for your choice!
6X45mm I picked your data! Now input then we can compare pretty much on an equal basis!
100 GR. HDY SP Hodgdon BL-C(2) .243" 2.340" 24.5 2404 43,000 CUP 26.5 2619 50,000 CUP
300 BLK
110 GR. HDY V-MAX HodgdonLil’Gun .308" 2.040" 18.9 2248 31.000 CUP 20.0 2388 37,600 CUP
:mad:
No, it would not sell. People want 30 caliber.
I specifically tried to avoid this by choosing those particular bullet weights. An 87-90 grain bullet is pretty standard medium bullet weight for that cartridge.
Likewise the 115 grain is a medium(refering to supersonic loads) load for the 300 blk.
Both cartridges will accept lighter and heavier bullets, however 100 grain bullets used in your numbers will far exceed magazine length for the 6x45, 95 grain is about maximum for the 6x45 in an AR and the ogive needs to be short at that weight.